Friday Linkdump

cool retro branding but way too much web2.0 nicey nicey fuck you thricey metaphor use
I like the way Gumtree asks if you want to bump your ad by premium sms – a micropayment service everyone has & is familiar with. Was extremely tempted whereas with online payment it would have been ‘no chance’ straight off the bat

Categories

Actually, you can’t tell someone not to fltater reposter… But a reposter doesn’t anything to post about if no one produces content. So, actually, the reposter should flattr the content producer or donate a major part to the producers But it’s unlikely going to do that way (which, I think, should be the correct way to doa0it.)EVERY work is valuable — even reproducing — but you can’t forget the original work. You can’t rely on the fact that anyone knows that that work isn’t original, and is conscious that he’s giving credit to the reposter, and not the original post.There is a practical problem (I think) here:a content reproducer which uses flattr, will put a flattr button on every post (as netzpolitik.org does).This isn’t correct, because in this way, the button assumes the value of “I like this CONTENT”.But you’re saying (and I agree with that): “I like your work of RE-SHARING.”So, the problem would be solved by having a single flattr button on the reposter site, which points to a single flattr resource: the site itself. NOT every content published, because it would be misleading.Anyway, content producers could just go “in the legal way” and ask the re-sharer to stop sharing the contents, or stop to getting credits/money/flattrs.If you care about my opinion about re-posters: 1 flattr button for the whole site or ban from flattr community. Re-sharing is good, but you can’t toggle credits to others and make a business from it (especially because you’re violating flattr’s rules).Nice post, anyway!~Aki